Abstract
On 2 July 2007 Dr Mohamed Haneef, an Indian doctor working in Australia, was arrested in Brisbane on suspicion of terrorism offences. It was alleged he had provided support for the Glasgow airport attacks by giving a mobile phone SIM card to a relative who was suspected of being involved. In the following 27 days Haneef would be held for questioning, charged, released on bail and immediately taken into immigration detention; then charges would be dropped, he would be released from detention and leave the country. There were remarkable investigative and prosecutorial shortcomings, some of which were publicly uncovered in the intense media coverage, especially after Haneef’s barrister leaked a police interview transcript to a journalist. The Clarke Inquiry (Clarke, 2008) would later explore the many failings of the state during that period. Eventually, Haneef was completely exonerated.
Jacqui Ewart’s book explores what happened, using documentary sources (especially the Clarke Inquiry report), observation and 38 interviews with many of the significant figures, including Haneef himself. It is an important work because it forms part of the record of what happened at this time. Along with the Clarke Inquiry (Clarke, 2008), it should become a significant point of reference for those who will seek in future to understand the events, and it provides an account of how the affair may affect the behaviour of legislatures, governments, lawyers, police and media in the years to come.
The book is a chronicle that documents events rather than a thematic analysis or an exploration that seeks to draw out implications or conclusions. Its structure reflects this; rather than using chapters, there is a brief preface and list of key people and then the bulk of it is a chronologically organized 180-page section titled ‘The Haneef Affair’. While the preliminaries are useful, a more substantial introduction would have been welcome. What is really missing is a statement of Ewart’s objective. The book grew from a smaller planned (and stymied) project that sought to look at how the media reports Muslims, ethnicity and terrorism, and then turned into something else much bigger – but it is never quite clear exactly what Ewart wants to do. If chronicle, then to what end? If analysis, then there needs to be a much better sense of what are her core questions and some answers to those questions. Nevertheless, the chronicle works very well in some ways, largely letting events speak for themselves (albeit that the selection and composition of material is necessarily analytical in its approach and implications). The approach perhaps reflects Ewart’s professional background and disciplinary home in journalism and the two strengths of the book follow from this.
First, Ewart is not reluctant to portray both the flattering and unflattering dimensions of the many participants. Almost nobody – including Haneef – emerges without having been the subject of critical comments at some point, be it self-criticism or criticism by others. Readers who followed events closely at the time will remember Haneef’s solicitor Peter Russo as the frankly spoken advocate for his client. Russo emerges as a more complex character. He is less likeable for some controlling behaviour and self-promotion in the media, but we are reminded early on that when Haneef had been in custody some time and a Queensland police officer rang Russo looking for a lawyer – ‘There is a young fellow here who needs your help’, said the officer – Russo came, and it is difficult to believe his client could have had better representation.
Second, the book provides valuable insights into the media’s place in events. It shows what journalists and editors were doing. It shows how the police, government and lawyers all had media strategies. Ewart shows the caution that lay beneath the surface of often outstanding reporting, revealing worries that Haneef’s reputation was being trashed if he was innocent, and worries that the police might be right and he was guilty. It shows the confusion and fear of legal repercussions for journalists. And Ewart is robustly critical of the media. She recounts a cavalier attitude to reporting allegations, errors and failures to check facts, oversights and a lack of criticism in analysis, failures to pursue important issues and selectivity in reporting. However, she also shows how difficult it was to get information, to work through the volume and diversity of it, and meet the demands of the news cycle.
The book falls down occasionally in ways that could leave her vulnerable to criticisms that she is partial. There is some imprecise discussion of the law when she describes the legislation as enabling police to hold a suspect ‘almost indefinitely’. This does not state the position correctly, though she goes on to explain the extensions of investigating time more accurately (if not with complete clarity). Similarly, there looks to be an unfortunate error when she initially states that Haneef’s first interview ran for almost 12 hours, whereas it ran for six and a half hours (p. 35, cf. p. 45). There could also have been more discussion of the varied public opinion about Haneef. Ewart recognizes the challenge in an observation by the head of Russo’s law firm: he is ‘the only person associated with the case that is bold enough to voice what others won’t. “I think opinion is still very much divided in relation to Dr Haneef.”’ However, this is not explored further.
The choice to forgo analysis of wider issues means that the book does not investigate, as it might have done, one of the most interesting issues to arise from the Haneef affair: the complexity of the relationship between the media coverage and the legal and political processes. For instance, journalist David Marr is quoted on the significance of releasing the interview transcript to the media: ‘It led to the charges being dropped. It led to his release. It led to him being allowed to go home to India.’ But this is not tested or analysed, and the bigger issues it opens up are not pursued. On at least the first two of these claims, it is not at all clear that Marr is correct. If there was not the evidence (which there was not) then – with or without that transcript being made public – it would appear the charges would have been dropped and Haneef released, though reporting may have had other effects. The third is even more complex and some further analysis of these issues would have been fascinating. These claims are among the many matters raised in Ewart’s book, which are of remarkable importance for our understanding of state accountability, the right to know, and the vulnerability and protection of individuals.